informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0504.txt

919 lines
43 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 11:31:59 -07:00
Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 17, 1992 Volume 5 : Issue 04
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Coyp Editor: Etaion Shrdlu, Junior
CONTENTS, #5.04 (Jan 17, 1992)
File 1--Steve Jackson Games case trial postponed
File 2--MAJOR CHANGES AT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
File 3--Newsbytes on EFF Reorganization
File 4--Some Questions & Comments on EFF Reorganization
File 5--Transcript of Secret Service Press Conference in Lubbock
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The editors may be
contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at:
Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115.
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" on the PC-EXEC BBS
at (414) 789-4210; in Europe from the ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352)
466893; and using anonymous FTP on the Internet from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud, red.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.91) in
/cud, halcyon.com (192.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud, and
ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
European readers can access the ftp site at: nic.funet.fi pub/doc/cud.
Back issues also may be obtained from the mail server at
mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us.
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Some authors do copyright their material, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 14:30:48 -0500
From: Christopher Davis <ckd@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 1--Steve Jackson Games case trial postponed
((MODERATORS' NOTE: We won't be attending the trial, but hope to
have on-the-spot coverage from a few astute observers, and will
keep readers posted on the events)).
+=========+=================================================+===========+
| F.Y.I. |Newsnote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation | 1/15/92 |
+=========+=================================================+===========+
STEVE JACKSON GAMES TRIAL POSTPONED
The clerk of the court in which the Steve Jackson Games trial will be
held has just informed all parties that the SJG trial WILL NOT be heard
next week as originally scheduled. Only the summary judgement argument
will be heard next week and that is something for which witnesses are
not needed. The clerk informs us that the *earliest* the case can
expect to go to trial is the week of January 25th. A confirmation of
this date is expected from the office of Judge Sparks at the beginning
of next week.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 11:44:20 -0500
From: Christopher Davis <ckd@EFF.ORG>
Subject: File 2--MAJOR CHANGES AT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
MAJOR CHANGES AT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
Cambridge, Massachusetts
eff@eff.org
Wednesday, January 13, 1993
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was founded in July, 1990 to assure
freedom of expression in digital media, with a particular emphasis on
applying the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights to computer-based communication.
EFF has met many of those challenges. We have defended civil liberties
in court. We have shaped the policy debate on emerging communications
infrastructure and regulation. We have increased awareness both on the
Net and among those law enforcement officials, policy makers, and
corporations whose insufficient understanding of the digital
environment threatened the freedom of Cyberspace.
But we've found that Cyberspace is huge. It extends not only beyond
constitutional jurisdiction but to the very limits of imagination. To
explore and understand all the new social and legal phenomena that
computerized media make possible is a task which grows faster than it
can be done.
Maintaining an office in Cambridge and another in Washington DC, has
been expensive, logistically difficult, and politically painful. Many
functions were duplicated. The two offices began to diverge
philosophically and culturally. We had more good ideas than efficient
means for carrying them out. And an unreasonable share of leadership
and work fell on one of our founders, Mitch Kapor.
These kinds of problems are common among fast-growing technology
startups in their early years, but we recognize that we have not
always dealt with them gracefully. Further, we didn't respond
convincingly to those who began to believe that EFF had lost sight of
its founding vision.
Against that background, the EFF Board met in Cambridge on January 7,
8, and 9 to revisit EFF's mission, set priorities for the Foundation's
future activities, adopt a new structure and staff to carry them out,
and clarify its relationship to others outside the organization.
1. EFF'S CAMBRIDGE OFFICE WILL CLOSE.
We will be shutting down our original Cambridge office over the next
six months, and moving all of EFF's staff functions to our office in
Washington.
2. JERRY BERMAN HAS BEEN NAMED EFF'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
In December, we announced that Mitch Kapor would be leaving the job of
Executive Director. He wanted to devote more time and energy to
specific EFF projects, such as The Open Platform Initiative, focusing
less on administrative details and more on EFF's strategic vision. We
also said that we would conduct a search for his replacement,
appointing Jerry Berman as our Interim Director. Jerry's appointment
is now permanent, and the search is terminated.
3. CLIFF FIGALLO WILL MAINTAIN EFF'S PRESENCE ON-LINE, AND WILL DIRECT
THE TRANSITION PROCESS.
Cambridge Office Director Cliff Figallo will manage the EFF transition
process, working out of Cambridge. He is now considering a move to
Washington for organizational functions yet to be defined. In the
meantime, he will oversee our on-line presence and assure electronic
accessibility.
4. STAFF COUNSEL MIKE GODWIN'S ROLE TO BE DETERMINED
We recognize the enormous resource represented by Mike Godwin. He
probably knows more about the forming Law of Cyberspace than anyone,
but differences of style and agenda created an impasse which left us
little choice but to remove him from his current position. EFF is
committed to continuing the services he has provided. We will discuss
with him a new relationship which would make it possible for him to
continue providing them.
5. COMMUNICATIONS STAFFERS GERARD VAN DER LEUN AND RITA ROUVALIS WILL
LEAVE EFF.
Despite the departure of the Cambridge communications staff, we expect
to continue publishing EFFector Online on schedule as well as
maintaining our usual presence online. Both functions will be under
the direction of Cliff Figallo, who will be assisted by members of the
Board and Washington staff.
6. JOHN PERRY BARLOW WILL ASSUME A GREATER LEADERSHIP ROLE.
John will replace Mitch Kapor as Chairman of EFF's Executive
Committee, which works closely with the Executive Director to manage
day to day operations. Mitch will remain as Board Chairman of EFF. All
of the directors have committed themselves to a more active role in
EFF so that decisions can be made responsively during this transition.
7. EFF WILL NOT SPONSOR LOCAL CHAPTERS, BUT WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH
INDEPENDENT REGIONAL GROUPS.
We have labored mightily and long over the whole concept of chapters,
but, in the end, the Board has decided not to form EFF chapters.
Instead, EFF will encourage the development of independent local
organizations concerned with Electronic Frontier issues. Such groups
will be free to use the phrase "Electronic Frontier" in their names
(e.g., Omaha Electronic Frontier Outpost), with the understanding that
no obligation, formal or informal, is implied in either direction
between independent groups and EFF. While EFF and any local groups
that proliferate will remain organizationally independent and
autonomous, we hope to work closely with them in pursuit of shared
goals. The EFF Board still plans to meet with representatives of
regional groups in Atlanta next week to discuss ideas for future
cooperation.
8. WE CLARIFIED EFF'S MISSION AND ACTIVITIES
In undertaking these changes, the board is guided by the sense that
our mission is to understand the opportunities and challenges of
digital communications to foster openness, individual freedom, and
community.
We expect to carry out our mission through activities in the following
areas:
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND ADVOCACY. EFF has been working to promote an
open architecture for telecommunications by various means, including
the Open Platform Initiative, the fight against the FBI's Digital
Telephony wiretap proposal, and efforts to free robust encryption from
NSA control.
FOSTERING COMMUNITY. Much of the work we have done in the Cambridge
office has been directed at fostering a sense of community in the
online world. These efforts will continue. We have realized that we
know far less about the conditions conducive to the formation of
virtual communities than is necessary to be effective in creating
them. Therefore, we will devote a large portion of our R & D resources
to developing better understanding in this area.
LEGAL SERVICES. We were born to defend the rights of computer users
against over-zealous and uninformed law enforcement officials. This
will continue to be an important focus of EFF's work. We expect to
improve our legal archiving and dissemination while continuing to
provide legal information to individuals who request it, and support
for attorneys who are litigating. Both the board and staff will go on
writing and speaking about these issues. Our continuing suit on behalf
of Steve Jackson Games is unaffected by these changes.
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT. We have started many projects over the years
as their need became apparent. Going forward, EFF will allocate
resources to investigating and initiating new projects. To ensure that
our projects have the greatest impact and can reasonably be completed
with the resources available, EFF will sharpen its selection and
review process.
IN CONCLUSION...
We expect that the foregoing may not sit well with many on the Net. We
may be accused of having "sold out" our bohemian birthright for a mess
of Washingtonian pottage. It may be widely, and perhaps hotly,
asserted that the "suits" have won and that EFF is about to become
another handmaiden to the large corporate interests which support our
work on telecommunications policy.
However plausible, these conclusions are wrong. We made these choices
with many of the same misgivings our members will feel. We have toiled
for many months to restore harmony between our two offices. But in
some cases, personal animosities had grown bitter. It seems clear that
much of the difficulty was structural. We believe that our decisions
will go far to focus EFF's work and make it more effective. The
decision to locate our one office in Washington was unavoidable; our
policy work can only be done effectively there.
Given the choice to centralize in Washington, the decision to
permanently appoint Jerry Berman as our Executive Director was
natural. Jerry has, in a very short time, built an extremely effective
team there, so our confidence in his managerial abilities is high. But
we are also convinced of his commitment to and growing understanding
of the EFF programs which extend beyond the policy establishment in
Fortress Washington.
We recognize that inside the Beltway there lies a very powerful
reality distortion field, but we have a great deal of faith in the
ability of the online world to keep us honest. We know that we can't
succeed in insightful policy work without a deep and current
understanding of the networks as they evolve -- technically,
culturally, and personally.
To those who believe that we've become too corporate, we can only say
that we founded EFF because we didn't feel that large, formal
organizations could be trusted with the future of Cyberspace. We have
no intention of becoming one ourselves.
Some will read between these lines and draw the conclusion that Mitch
Kapor is withdrawing from EFF. That is absolutely not the case. Mitch
remains thoroughly committed to serving EFF's agenda. We believe
however, that his energies are better devoted to strategy and to
developing a compelling vision of future human communications than in
day to day management.
The difficult decision to reject direct chapter affiliation was based
on a belief that no organization which believes so strongly in
self-determination should be giving orders or taking them.
Nevertheless, we are eager to see the development of many outposts on
the Electronic Frontier, whether or not they agree with us or one
another on every particular. After all, EFF is about the preservation
of diversity.
This has been a hard passage. We have had to fire good friends, and
this is personally painful to us. We are deeply concerned that, in
moving to Washington, EFF is in peril for its soul. But we are also
convinced that we have made the best decisions possible under the
circumstances, and that EFF will be stronger as a result. Please cut
us some slack during the transition. And please tell us (either
collectively at eff@eff.org or individually at the addresses below)
when we aren't meeting your expectations. In detail and with examples.
We don't promise to fix everything, but we are interested in listening
and working on the issues that affect us all.
The Board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Mitch Kapor, mkapor@eff.org
John Perry Barlow, barlow@eff.org
John Gilmore, gnu@toad.com
Stewart Brand, sbb@well.sf.ca.us
Esther Dyson, edyson@mcimail.com
Dave Farber, farber@cis.upenn.edu
Jerry Berman, jberman@eff.org
Cliff Figallo, fig@eff.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 22:00:18 EST
From: mcmullen@MINDVOX.PHANTOM.COM(John F. McMullen)
Subject: File 3--Newsbytes on EFF Reorganization
The following will appear on Newsbytes. Newsbytes is a copyrighted
commercial service and this article is distributed to the recipients
with the express permission of the authors.
Electronic Frontier Foundation Has Major Reorganization 1/15/93
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A., 1993 JAN 15 (NB) -- The Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) has announced major reorganization changes
under which its Cambridge, MA office will close and several persons,
including staff counsel Mike Godwin, will leave the organization.
In the revised organization, Jerry Berman, director of EFF's
Washington office and Interim EFF Executive Director will become
permanent Executive Director. This move ends a search process for an
Executive Director to replace EFF-founder Mitch Kapor, who stepped
down as Executive Director in December 1992. The functions of the
Cambridge office will be transferred to EFF's Washington office.
The announcement of the changes also provided clarification on Kapor's
role, saying "In December, we announced that Mitch Kapor would be
leaving the job of Executive Director. He wanted to devote more time
and energy to specific EFF projects, such as The Open Platform
Initiative, focusing less on administrative details and more on EFF's
strategic vision.
Some will read between these lines and draw the conclusion that Mitch
Kapor is withdrawing from EFF. That is absolutely not the case. Mitch
remains thoroughly committed to serving EFF's agenda. We believe,
however, that his energies are better devoted to strategy and to
developing a compelling vision of future human communications than in
day-to-day management."
John Perry Barlow, co-founder of EFF, will also assume more day to day
responsibilities and "will replace Mitch Kapor as Chairman of EFF's
Executive Committee, which works closely with the Executive Director to
manage day to day operations." Kapor will remain as chairman of EFF's
Board of Directors.
Barlow told Newsbytes "With the movement of the offices to Washington,
we were concerned with the natural gravitational pull of the Beltway
mentality. The board felt that my day-to-day involvement would counter
this tendency. The bohemian credentials are pretty well established."
Barlow continued "The board was faced with a constant pull within the
organization between those who wanted to focus on an advocacy position
and those who wanted to be a grass-roots driven group. While we want to
have close ties to the grass-roots and learn from all groups using
cyberspace, we are not a representative organization driven by a
democratic process. We clearly would not be able to foster our view of
free expression if we were bound by a majority-rule type of organization."
Barlow also said "We also encountered the type of problems that any
organization has with two policy making offices. There is always a
tendency for dispute. We, therefore, decided to combine our functions
into the Washington office. We have misgivings about these decisions;
we on the board took what we felt was the best solution to keep the
organization on track towards its goals. We now have to work at
carrying out these objectives."
Barlow's emphasis on a focus on the initial goals of the organization
was mirrored in the phrasing of the EFF press release which begins
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation was founded in July, 1990 to
assure freedom of expression in digital media, with a particular
emphasis on applying the principles embodied in the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights to computer-based communication."
The same statement also enumerates details of the problems concerning
the two locations alluded to by Barlow -- "Maintaining an office in
Cambridge and another in Washington DC, has been expensive,
logistically difficult, and politically painful. Many functions were
duplicated. The two offices began to diverge philosophically and
culturally. We had more good ideas than efficient means for carrying
them out. "
Barlow's comments to Newsbytes concerning the pull toward a grassroots
"bottom-up" type of organization and the board's countering of that
pull is reflected in the decision of the board not to continue along
the path toward local chapters. EFF currently has a local chapter in
Austin, Texas and others have been in formation in Berkeley,
California and New York City. The EFF statement said "We have labored
mightily and long over the whole concept of chapters, but, in the end,
the Board has decided not to form EFF chapters. Instead, EFF will
encourage the development of independent local organizations concerned
with Electronic Frontier issues. Such groups will be free to use the
phrase "Electronic Frontier" in their names (e.g., Omaha Electronic
Frontier Outpost), with the understanding that no obligation, formal
or informal, is implied in either direction between independent groups
and EFF. While EFF and any local groups that proliferate will remain
organizationally independent and autonomous, we hope to work closely
with them in pursuit of shared goals. The EFF Board still plans to
meet with representatives of regional groups in Atlanta next week to
discuss ideas for future cooperation."
From the moment of the EFF announcement of the changes, there has been
a flow of criticism on on-line services such as the WELL (Whole Earth
"Lectronic Link) concerning both the centralization in Washington and
the severing of EFF staff counsel Mike Godwin from the organization.
Godwin has been, perhaps, after Kapor, the most visible member of EFF,
representing EFF at conferences and user groups and providing a legal
resource to members of the on-line community. The EFF statement on
Godwin's position said "We recognize the enormous resource represented
by Mike Godwin. He probably knows more about the forming Law of
Cyberspace than anyone, but differences of style and agenda created an
impasse which left us little choice but to remove him from his current
position. EFF is committed to continuing the services he has provided.
We will discuss with him a new relationship which would make it
possible for him to continue providing them."
Godwin told Newsbytes "I will still be working with EFF and will be
representing EFF at the trial in the Steve Jackson Games case which
begins next week. The EFF board had some difficult decisions to make
and, while I might have made some different decisions, everyone who
believes in EFF owes the board a chance to pursue its direction. The
organization has all the potential that it ever had and, if I did not
believe that, I would not be negotiating with it to continue an
affiliation. I believe in EFF and will continue to support its
activities."
Also leaving EFF in the re-organization are Gerard VanDerLeun and Rita
Rouvalis. VanDerLeun and Rouvalis have been responsible for the
communications function of EFF's Cambridge office.
Cliff Figallo, director of EFF's Cambridge office, repeated for
Newsbytes a statement that he had posted on the WELL, saying "I will
say that even though this is an outcome that I dreaded, having moved
across the country at great sacrifice to serve the online
constituency, I believe that the board (of which I am a member) acted
responsibly, intelligently and bravely in making these decisions and
taking these actions. There was no sense wimping around with
half-solutions. Choose your course and Go Fer It. A good board does
that. There were, and still are, doubts and reservations, but that's
why there is diversity of viewpoint on a good board. You just take
your best shot. For a long time the board tried to integrate two
divergent agendas out of a desire to be careful and serve both
agendas. It was killing the organization."
Figallo, formerly the executive director of the WELL told Newsbytes
that he will be remaining with EFF during the transition period and
will continue to be the voice of grass roots to the EFF board. He also
said that he is not yet certain as to his long term plans. Figallo
will be attending the upcoming Atlanta meeting with the local groups
that have been working with EFF.
The board of directors of EFF is composed of Kapor, Barlow, Berman,
Figallo, David Farber of the University of Pennsylvania, Stewart Brand
of the Whole Earth Review, John Gilmore of Cygnus Support and Esther
Dyson of EDventure Holdings.
(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/Press Contact: Christopher
Davis, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ckd@eff.org/19930115)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 93 23:29:54 CST
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: File 4--Some Questions & Comments on EFF Reorganization
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following exchanges were taken from The Well's
EFF conference and a Usenet post).
++++++
Topic 402: Major Changes for the Electronic Frontier Foundation
# 75: jim thomas (jthomas) Thu, Jan 14, '93 (22:16) 28 lines
Although I, too, recognize and appreciate the tough choices EFF has
been forced to make, and respect their continued dedication to
pursuing cyberrights, I am still a bit unclear about their direction
and what it means for members. Among the concerns:
1) Who is now the constituency?
2) What is the primary source of revenue? While this is normally not
particularly an important question, if the primary contributors
are large corporations, what are the implications of this
for the future?
Does the reorganization symbolize a shift away from grassroots
"democracy" (remember those discussions waaaay back in '90 when
this conference started?) toward restricted access?
4) What issues previously addressed will now be scrapped?
Mike (Godwin), in many ways, symbolized what EFF stood for: An
aggressive libertarian organization attempting to balance the broad
panoply of Constitutional rights with the legitimate needs of law
enforcement. His visibility created positive awareness for EFF
through his on-line and F2F interactions, and his energy in responding
to questions and helping others was critical in giving EFF a positive
image on all sides of the various issues. I suspect that EFF would be
a very different organization without his participation at some level.
I remain unwavering in my enthusiasm for EFF, but I am not yet certain
of the implications of the changes or what it means for the members.
+++++++++++++++++++++
FROM: John Perry Barlow (barlow@well.sf.ca.us)
Jim...
These are thoughtful questions. Let me see if I can answer them
succinctly:
1) Who is now the constituency?
Same as it ever was. Anyone who has an interest in the present and
future openness of digital communications. This includes not only the
online community....or rather, communities, of today, but all the
people who will wake up to find themselves wired tomorrow.
2) What is the primary source of revenue? While this is normally not
particularly an important question, if the primary contributors
are large corporations, what are the implications of this for the
future?
To be perfectly honest, we get a lot more support now from large
corporations than from individual donors. But I think I can honestly
say that we have not been much influenced in our actions by this
fact.
We have some big jobs to do. None of this comes cheap. We
take support where we can find it and don't accept it with strings
attached (unless donations are given, as they sometime are, in support
of specific programs). The best way to balance the funding weight of
the large outfits is for individuals to be a bit more generous in
their support.
3) Does the reorganization symbolize a shift away from grassroots
"democracy" (remember those discussions waaaay back in '90 when
this conference started?) toward restricted access?
Please remember that there is a difference between democracy and
freedom of expression. We support the latter and hope that the former
will be a natural consequence. We believe in unrestricted access.
4) What issues previously addressed will now be scrapped?
I think, if you read the statement carefully, you will find that we
are scrapping less than we are fine-tuning. The overall agenda
remains much the same.
++++++++++++
FROM: Mitchell Kapor (mkapor@well.sf.ca.us) 15, '93 (06:56)
The FTP archive will continue to be actively maintained here in
Cambridge and later in Washington, D.C. EFF will hire a net-savvy
system administrator in the D.C. area to oversee tehcnical operations
of eff.org.
+++++++
FROM: Jim Thomas (cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com)
John (Barlow)---thanks for the succinct (and re-assuring) comments.
Growing pains are never easy, and the EFF reorganization becomes an
occasion for others of us to critically question our own involvement,
goals, and direction, which is usually a good thing. Perhaps the next
few months will be an exciting time of growth and maturity for us all.
Dialectic of existence, and all that.....
I knew a kid who, in highschool biology, took the instructor's pet
lizzard and cut off its tail, then its legs, and fed them to it. The
lizzard's internal programming predisposed it to self-destructively
feed upon itself, much as some of EFF's critics are doing.
EFF's reorganization may or may not prove a wise or effective move.
The new strategy may or may not be fiddling with the devil. The EFF's
apparent direction certainly departs from my own preferences for a
more aggressivly radical-populist approach. But, this misses the
point. The EFF was formed to protect cyber-rights, and there is more
than one "correct" way to do this. The board has chosen the way with
which they feel the most comfortable and competent. Some of us may
feel betrayed by that choice because, myopically, we feel EFF should
be shaped in *OUR* image and deal with *OUR* issues. We forget that
social action requires a variety of approaches. If we're not
comfortable with EFF's current direction, we can wish them well,
organize in alternative ways, and continue to work together in ways
that we feel most comfortable for common goals.
The primary forces behind EFF, John and Mitch, have been instrumental
in helping others, both publicly and privately, for the past three
years. Some of the criticisms against them (and EFF) are of the "yeh,
but what have you done for us lately?" variety.
Lizzards who feed on themselves may be satisfied for the nonce, but
they still invariably self-destruct. We should recognize that the
EFF's new direction is just one of the necessary steps involved in
social action, and the rest of us should use it as the opportunity to
reassess ways we can continue to organize and cooperate. We'll become
stronger in the process.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 93 24:01:51 PST
From: Edward Cavazos <polekat@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: File 5--Transcript of Secret Service Press Conference in Lubbock
((MODERATORS' NOTE: In December, the U.S. Secret Service raided a dorm
room at Texas Tech U. in Lubbock Texas (see CuD #4.67, file 2 for the
story). We thank all those involved for making available the following
transcript of the incident)).
For those of you who may be interested in following this case, I have
received a transcription of the press conference held by the Secret
Service after the bus in Lubbock.
This is a case (one of the first to my knowledge) of the new federal
felony copyright legislation being used to shut down a BBS. Trust me:
the facts are nowhere near the way they are represented in this press
conference..but that shouldn't surprise us, should it?
<thanks to Tom Adams for sending me this transcript, and granting
republication permission for his work>
++++++++++++++
This is a transcript of a press conference held on December
15th at Secret Service offices in Lubbock, Texas. It was held by Agent
David Freriks and is regarding the actions of the Secret Service at
Texas Tech University on December 14 1992. The press conference was
transcribed and attended by Tom Adams (AKA K%, SysOp of Kaptain's
Korner BBS 806-762-5536, WWIVnet 1@8607) Publisher of CONNECT LUBBOCK
BBS Newsletter.
+++++++++++++++++
FRERIKS: Ok...yesterday December 14th, 1992, in cooperation with and
working with the Texas Tech University police department and Academic
Computing Services, the Secret Service and the University Police
executed two search warrants for computer fraud and pirated bulletin
board computers. One was on campus and one was off. This person off
campus was a former student who had been, in the past, interviewed and
disciplinary handled by the University for doing the same thing. No
charges have been filed There will be a Federal Grand Jury in January,
we are anticipating this case will be presented to them at that time.
The former student was expelled from the University for misusing the
VAX system on campus. The case essentially was misuse of those VAX
accounts or the Academic Computing Services accounts. The students are
advised when they open these accounts what the rules and regulations
are and Margaret Simon (director of Texas Tech's news and publications
department) will cite those here in a minute. We will go ahead and
show you the stuff, at least one of them, and they are all three
essentially the same. We have not set all three of them up, we've got
one up and running so you guys can get an idea of what we're looking
at. The one on campus was what we consider a pirate bulletin board,
and a fairly sophisticated one. The one off campus was primarily, as
were all of them, dealing in proprietary and copyrighted software,
games, programs. Prior to this case this time, the former student
admitted to at least $6000 worth of stuff that he got himself and
that's probably not even close to the dollar amount that we are
looking at now. We're just now beginning to amass the dollar amount.
We're anticipating a substantial loss to the manufacturer. Questions?
REPORTER: Exactly what does it mean.. a pirate bulletin board? I'm not
familiar with that.
FRERIKS: Well a pirate bulletin board is an electronic bulletin board
that passes software, electronic games, computer games and programs,
and pass them back and forth without consent of the manufacturer and
sometimes they charge sometimes they don't normally there is no charge
it's just you give me something I'll give you something, back and
forth and the people end up with some tremendous computer programs out
there without paying for them.
REPORTER: So they're getting copies of these copyrighted disks
FRERIKS: Right.
REPORTER: For a substantial smaller price for the normally pay.
FRERIKS: Or no price at all, just to swap for another equally as good
program that someone else may have bought. The problems is they put
them up on these electronic bulletin boards and anybody that can get
into the bulletin board can get them back so you may have you know a
thousand people getting this particular type program without paying
for it.
REPORTER: Can you explain to us how the investigation got started?
REPORTER2: Yeah, how did you guys get alerted..
FRERIKS: Ok, the initial investigation began back in May when the,
what they call CERT, C-E-R-T, it's the Computer Emergency Response
Team from Carnegie Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh. That is a industry
sponsored group of computer experts that monitor numerous computer
systems, Internet and other things throughout the country. They
noticed some very highly unusual activity on Internet which is one of
the computer systems you can access through VAX. Internet, they called
the University among others several universities. They called Tech,
and Academic Computing Services started checking and find out this guy
was filling up disks, just this one operator was filling up a disk
which is ..(asking another agent) oh how big would one of those disks
be about a million? I don't know?
OTHER AGENT: They're gigabytes.
FRERIKS: Gigabyte disks were full, and the other students on campus
couldn't do their own research that the VAX, the system was intended
to be used for. And so they started checking into who was doing it and
who's account code was being used and it just worked down from there
and this former student was using one of the ..(asking Margaret Simon)
what kind of association did you say it was or organization, campus
organization, I mean just a campus organization?
SIMON: Campus organization
FRERIKS: They were using one of the campus organization's and I won't
tell you which one , one of their sub accounts off one of there VAX
account.
REPORTER: Margaret a question to you, what do you guys, do you have
any disciplinary action for these students?
SIMON: Well the Texas Tech University has a policy that all of our
computers are periodically and unannounced audited for security and
any time there's a violation of the security of Texas Tech's computers
then if a student is involved he's subject to University disciplinary
action, but also he's subject to our turning over and referring any
evidence for the case to a enforcement or an investigative agency
outside of the University such as we have done in this case so we will
proceed with disciplinary action in line with any law enforcement
action outside the University that
REPORTER: So what's it look like for them?
SIMON: I can't say at this time.
REPORTER: But they could face up to expulsion from the University?
SIMON: Any students involved could face expulsion from the University
yes.
REPORTER: That is I guess the worst scenario then, expulsion.
SIMON: Permanent expulsion, expulsion for certain period of years and
that would be determined by the University Disciplinary Committee.
REPORTER: And when will they be deciding on this, will they wait until
SIMON: It is my understanding since students are..since the university
goes on holiday next week and students are finished with this semester
this week the Disciplinary Committee would not meet again until the
middle of January in the spring semester.
FRERIKS: Why don't you cite the pamphlet.
SIMON: Yea I wanted to note...
FRERIKS: Cause each one of these kids had this pamphlet with them
yesterday.
SIMON: Every student who takes a computer course at Texas Tech or uses
the computers in the library or in any way has access to University
computing facilities or property is given this policy statement, "Laws
Polices and Computer use." Every instructor of computer science at
Texas tech discusses this booklet with his students so that the
students of Texas Tech University know that it is a violation of
University policy, of state and federal law to pirate copyrighted
software and they also know that they are responsible for anything
that goes on in there individual computer account, and they read this
book and in most classes they sign a document saying that they have
read this book and understand it so we are attempting to educate
students to what Federal and state law is and certainly to what
University policy is concerning computer fraud
REPORTER: Do like entering freshmen, I mean do you have to take a
computer course in order to get one of these pamphlets or ...let's say
I'm a entering freshman, and I have a computer I bring it into my dorm
room I'm not gonna get this pamphlet?
FRERIKS: You will if you want a VAX account.
REPORTER: Oh I see.
SIMON: In the vax accounts which are assigned though the APLC, the
learning center in the library. If you went in and signed up for an
account you would be given this booklet.
REPORTER: What is the benefit for this VAX account, I'm not familiar
with that.
SIMON: If you wanted access to the University's mainframe computer. If
you only used your computer in your room to do term papers and to
print them out then you wouldn't be on the VAX system using University
computing property in order to pirate software or to get on to a
network.
REPORTER: So legally they can patch into the University system through
VAX?
SIMON: Through opening an account.
REPORTER: OK
SIMON: And each of you can get a copy of this by the way or if you
don't have time to stop by the office i'll fax you a copy.
REPORTER: So basically these kids had an account, were using the
mainframe to pirate other software through an electronic bulletin
board?
SIMON: Yes
FRERIKS: Um hm. This is a major nation wide, world wide problem from
an industry point of view with tremendous losses in funds tremendous
losses of money. the VAX account at the University is a way to get
into numerous other research accounts or Internet which is the ...you
get onto Internet you can talk to anybody else who is on Internet
anywhere in the world which these kids were talking to Belgium, and
israel and Australia and they can do that just by this, thus avoiding
long distance phone calls. But most of the people on Internet I mean
on the VAX are there legitimately for research purposes they can go to
Mayo and get a file if they're a med student and they also get one of
these pamphlets if they get, like the Department of Engineering gives
out an account number just for that semester,the professor would give
it out so you can use the VAX well they also get one of those
pamphlets that explains what the rules are and the instructor spends a
good bit of time the first couple of classes going over computer
etiquette, computer rules.
REPORTER: Is this trail going to lead to any other schools out here in
Texas?
FRERIKS: Well there's several others that they were talking to but we
don't have any comment, nationwide, we don't have any comment on say
A&M.
REPORTER: Would this be where the headquarters would have been of the
operation?
FRERIKS: No, no.
REPORTER: Just merely one of the outlying areas?
FRERIKS: This is just one of the fingers, the ends of one of the
fingers out here.
REPORTER: How long did your investigation been going on until this
occurred yesterday?
FRERIKS: Well as we started in May for us it essentially ended in July
when the kid when we interviewed him the first time. University police
processed him he was expelled from school and we thought that ya know
give the kid a break.
REPORTER: Can you comment where the main operation is?
FRERIKS: No, no. There's so many of them. It's not like there's one He
could be a mastermind, you could be a mastermind, he could electronic
bulletin board, you're with the electronic bulletin boards here in
town?
ME: I'm with CONNECT LUBBOCK, I write a monthly newsletter...I'm just
here to get information..
FRERIKS: If you really have any details on what a bulletin board is
he'd be the guy who really could explain it to you.
REPORTER: How many people were arrested?
FRERIKS: Nobody was arrested.
REPORTER: Nobody.
FRERIKS: There were three individuals interviewed but we did not file
any charges.
REPORTER: Do you expect to?
FRERIKS: There will be a Grand jury in January, Federal Grand Jury.
REPORTER: What type of punishment do they face on the Federal level?
FRERIKS: I believe it's a ten year, a ten year felony for the computer
fraud, there's a copyright violation, infringements there's several
numerous violations involved here but essentially a ten year felony.
REPORTER: Is that per offence?
FRERIKS: Per offence.
REPORTER: Would each piece of software be considered an offence?
FRERIKS: Probably not but that's a US Attorn decision, and when we go
into the next room you'll see a hell of a lot of stuff and it's kind of
small so why don't we just go in one at a time.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #5.04
************************************